Evolution vs. Creation

Well, shouldn't you continue to look for explanation i/o of stop right there? Please excuse me as I'm not an expert in this kind of issue, but I don't know that there's one time in our universe/galaxies/whatever when "time" didn't exist before..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Darcy

....What happened before time and space began is not of our concern, because all we know so far is time and space.


Miss Darcy.

---

If something exists outside of our universe, it is near impossible to find it, since we will only be able to find what is in our own universe. If there was no time before the universe "began" then it is literally impossible to even look any farther back in time, since before that point, there was no time at all. Just my guess at what she might've meant, heh.

I can't imagine that the big-bang that created the universe and matter also created time. Time seems like one of those things that just is, because its a concept rather than a concrete thing. How could a material bang create a concept?

Peter Davies, a physicist, wrote a book entitled "God and the New Physics" where he explores ancient ideas in theology, like time, in the context of modern notions of quantum and relativity.

Davies states that Augustine was way ahead of his time, around the 5th century, to stated that God did not wait a vast number of millenia (in duration of time) before creating the world, but rather, time springs into being as part of the act of creation.

Here is just one of many long discussions to be found by google.com

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF3-97Busen.html

Interesting side note: Perhaps not in Davies book, but elsewhere there are discussions of how Kant is simply wrong about his notions of time and space in the light of Quantum and Relativity; ingenious, but wrong.

Sitaram,

Would you care to expand on how Kant is wrong?

AP

I dont have time to search in google.com, but later I will, there are lots of links there about Kant, time, space, quantum, right, wrong, good, evil.... you will have a lot of fun.

i cant believe some people believe the creation myth posed in the bible. not onlyis evolution a proven fact, but there are two creation stories at the start of genesis which would point at oral tradition and therefore it being just a story

Corpse,

You are assuming that believers will be reasonable. History shows that both impossibility and contradiction are no hindrance to them. I've even had a debate with some Christians who will simply answer that God can do anything. He can do the impossible and He can make contradictions truths. Now how can you possibly use reason with such people?

Exactly AP, when a person chooses to believe in particular religion means he/she (whether he/she realize it or not) in a way has become a unreasonable person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

Peter Davies, a physicist, wrote a book entitled "God and the New Physics" where he explores ancient ideas in theology, like time, in the context of modern notions of quantum and relativity.

---

Wow!! I thought I was (LITERALLY) one of the few people in the world who had read Davies' book, "God and the New Physics!!!!" I own this book, originally bought it second hand for research on a novel I wrote. Never, ever, expected anyone else to have read it. Nor can I understand why anyone would.........but again, WOW! *you learn so much on this forum*

Here is something that might astound you even further baddad. I met Paul Davies at an Open University party here in the UK back in the 80's. He was lecturing at the University of Newcastle back then. I think God and the New Physics had just come out in paperback then. A fascinating guy from what I remember. (I've read the book too!)

AP

A.P. I own an old-and-getting-tattered hardcover of the book. And now my world is more complete.....the author and at least two other people have read that book!!!! I mean, it IS obscure isn't it ?

And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!

Ah! Paul Davies! One of my favourites. I've got his book, "How to Build a Time Machine", among many others, and I find him a very good writer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!

---

I thought *I* said that. :D But you know, everything is relative, even time; no two persons have exactly the same time. It's not the Newtonian, established background that moves the same for everybody: no, time is relative, "everything is by comparison." Have you heard the one about the person walking down a street in a city, and asking a random person what the time is (seeing he has a watch)?

1st Person: What's the time, please?
2nd Person: I don't know; ask a philosopher, I'm only a scientist.

Hehe. Time, as in physical time, is interweaved with space, if you've heard of spacetime. As you travel through space, you travel through time. The way I understand it, the faster you move, the slower time goes for you in comparison to someone stationary. It won't be a big difference, but only noticeable in nanoseconds, but it still exists. The difference, I mean.

Time is elastic.

Miss Darcy.

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/time/mctaggart.html

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html

Two links on McTaggart's concept of the unreality of time. He wrote a book in the 1920's called The Nature of Existence, in which he came up with his argument about time having the A, B and C series nature. Very difficult to summarise his ideas so anybody interested should go to these websites.

I did a google.com search on "kant is wrong" and came up with 308 hits.

Of course, I in no way mean to imply that Kant IS wrong about anything simply from the number of google.com hits returned. But such a search does uncover a lot of interesting reading; interesting at least for those who are motivated by a genuine intellectual curiosity.

As I quickly looked over some of this material, one thought in particular struck me. Kant saw refutation as the touchstone of error, and hence Kant labored to construct a philosophy which would be irrefutable. But can we assume that something is unquestionably true simply because it has yet to be refuted? Can we assume that it will never be refuted? Can we know that anything non-trivial is irrefutable?


The first four links are what I feel are most interesting (and one is written from the point of view of Islam)

Among the remainder of the links, there are some which look like interesting forums where one may post.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF6-02Carter.pdf

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Chapter7.htm

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re14/L14r.html

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm

===================


http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives...ar00/0065.html

http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14...pic-topic-1842

-start-0.html

http://www.thymos.com/mind/lakoff2.html

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm



http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/p...m/tpm01-19.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_59473700

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerbriefing5.htm

http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/005681.shtml

http://www.pabst-publishers.com/Psyc...0/freeman3.htm

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...9176&start=25&

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...9176&start=25&

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html

http://www.friesian.com/space.htm


http://www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/SST/phil2.htm

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re13/L13r.html

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~hatfield/phil004gr4.html


http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/PhilosophyToday.htm

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-105218.html